Just finished HP7

[Nyarlathotep]

That's actually a good point, Komag! I never thought of it that way!

[demagogue]

Gez, this thread is looking like one of those CIA documents that they clear for public release, only to black out 99% of it with only the words duck, microfilm, and Boise appearing somewhere in the middle.

 

Edit: ... and apparently someone hitting the punchline before me. oops.

Edited July 26, 2007 by demagogue

[Macsen]

 

I bought this book at a music festival in Wales because it was pissing down with rain so hard the river next to the campsite was actually overflowing and needed I something to pass the time in my tent. So I read a bit and the characters end up in a tent in Wales where it's pissing with rain next to a overflowing river!

 

So I found the first half of the book a bit dull to tell the truth. Dammit I want escapeism, please! i don't want to read about miserable tent while in a miserble tent.

 

This line is just to

squirrel

confuse people reading

giant pancreas

between the black bits.

 

Things picked up once the Dealthy Hallows were mentioned. I think the ending was executed well but going for the old 'allegory for Jesus' line was a bit of a cop-out. God should sue JK Rowling for stealing his ideas. And we could have got the Jesus reference without the 'King's Cross' (nudge nudge wink wink ey ey) chapter title.

 

I think it was Voldemort under the chair in the station, too. And when he died he was stuck there forever. Bwahahaha!

 

[Nyarlathotep]

This line is just to

squirrel

confuse people reading

giant pancreas

between the black bits.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean!

I was doing a bit of that myself. Though, I do have to commend you for that Family Guy reference.

toothpaste

I had just been sticking to

lubed up

actual phrases or comments that

Episcopalians

naturally seemed out of place

extension cord

, despite being perfectly in context.

with the parking ticket. That was the best!

[sparhawk]

I also read the book during my vacation and it took me about two days. I felt that it was quite a good ending, only the startup of the book was quite slow. Well, the beginning was good, but then it dragged quite some time until Harry finally found out what the Hallows were.

 

 

When I read about the death of Hedwig I was quite schocked. I thought that this would be one of the two deaths that are close to Harry, but in the end there were a lot more poeple. That George died, was quite sad, but somehod it didn't really come across as strong as it should have IMO. It was a much sadder thing for me when I read that Dobby died.

 

I guess I have to read it again though, because I'm not sure I completely understood all the explanations at the end, which was also due to the fact that my daughter was constantly nagging me to get finished with it, so she can read it as well. Which, in the end, she didn't because then she decided to wait until October for the german version.

[Crispy]

It was a much sadder thing for me when I read that Dobby died.

That part was the closest I came to crying in the whole book. *sniff*

 

I guess I have to read it again though, because I'm not sure I completely understood all the explanations at the end

It's pretty tangled, isn't it. I had to read the ending twice as well before I was confident that I'd "got it". (And then part of it a third time, just to double-check my position in the above argument with Nyar.)

[OrbWeaver]

The thing is, it really doesn't matter how many deaths/disasters/tragedies there are in the book, because they could always use a Time Turner to go back and undo them just like with Buckbeak in Book 3.

 

The introduction of time travel into the Harry Potter universe was the single biggest mistake JKR could make, in my opinion. Magic may defy the laws of physics, but time travel defies the laws of logic which is a whole order of magnitude more unforgivable.

 

I also find it very hard to believe the whole "we can't resurrect the dead" argument -- if they can transfigure humans into various animals and back again with no permanent loss or damage, surely transforming a corpse into a living human should be just as easy?

[Crispy]

Aww, but I loved the time travel sequence in book 3.

 

I think the reason (or excuse, if you like) JKR can get away with time travel is that changing the past is so dangerous that nobody dares to attempt it. That, and the entire stock of Time Turners was smashed (though admittedly this is a weak argument since they could presumably just build more, assuming they know how).

 

I also find it very hard to believe the whole "we can't resurrect the dead" argument -- if they can transfigure humans into various animals and back again with no permanent loss or damage, surely transforming a corpse into a living human should be just as easy?

That's an easy one. It's because there are souls in the HP universe, and these souls are not made from the same fundamental stuff as matter. You can turn an apple into an orange, but you can't give it life. (Inferi don't count since they're not actually alive; they're just magically animated corpses.)

 

I'm sure one can sit back and poke holes in the fabric of the HP universe all day long if one chooses, but ultimately I don't see the point except to demonstrate how smarter-than-thou one is. It's a work of fiction set in a world containing magic, and as such some suspension of disbelief is required. For the most part I think JKR manages to dodge around the plot holes at least as well as most authors do. If you don't like 'em, don't read 'em; meanwhile I'll be enjoying myself despite any apparent logical contradictions.

[Macsen]

What I don't underestand is that when the Minister of Magic visits the muggle Prime Minister in book 6 he refers to the PMs predecessor as 'He' even though the book is set in 1996 and the then PM, John Major, had taken over from Margaret Thatcher, who was, though some would dispute this, a She.

 

Being friends with the current PM Gordon Brown you'd think JKR would know this?!

 

Tsk tsk tsk...

[Crispy]

I suspect the Prime Minister is a different person in the Harry Potter world. Wouldn't want to put words in someone's mouth without their permission.

[Macsen]

I'm sure one can sit back and poke holes in the fabric of the HP universe all day long if one chooses, but ultimately I don't see the point except to demonstrate how smarter-than-thou one is.

I was just being overly nitpicky as a jokey response to this.

[sparhawk]

At least with one aspect from Book 6 I was right.

 

I never thought that Snape really killed Dumbledore out of his loaylity to Voldemort. I always thought that Dumbledore and Snape discussed this, and that D. order S. to preserve his cover even under the most extreme circumstances, which would even include killing D. if neccessary. I thought that it might have been even planned to save Malfoy, but I was not sure about this part, but I was pretty sure that Snape was NOT the evil guy as he always was made to look. One reason why I didn't believe it was pretty simple. In all the earlier books, Snape was always made extremely suspicious, and in the end it turned out that it was the other way around, so I thought that this would be a good opportunity to take it to the extreme. It's also a nice touch that Snape is rehabilitated because I always liked this character the most (at least in the movies). I was surprised though, that the connection to Potter was so much closer than I thought though. Given the many hints where Snape was described to hate Potter, and then the explanation in Book 7, I would have thought that his feelings for him might have been much better. But then, probably the hate for his father might have been to much.

 

[Crispy]

I actually feel sorry for Snape now. Poor guy. I'm glad he turned out not to be evil.

[Macsen]

I think Snape was still pretty evil. He supported Voldemort at first, a known mass-murderer, and only turned against him when he killed the woman he had been freakishly obsessing over. If Voldemort had given him the chance to kill James and keep Lily for himself he probably would have. And he didn't exactly sacrifice much to be on the side of good - he had a plum job, decent pay, and so on, while the rest of the Death Eaters had to rot in Azkaban. And if Voldemort had won in the end I don't think Snape would have announced himself as a good guy.

[sparhawk]

That may be. But it counts what you do, not what you might have done. Still I agree to some extent.

[Crispy]

I do see your point, and it's valid. Still,

at least he's not quite as evil as we thought he was. He was a self-centred opportunist for the most part, but it is worth noting that his last act was to try and justify himself to Harry - basically asking for Harry to understand and forgive him. I think that's very telling.

 

 

 

Also, I can't help but wonder if Snape would have been a much nicer person if he hadn't been shaped by his life experiences - his home life was evidently bad, and he was mercilessly bullied by James at school. It's not entirely his fault how he turned out.

 

[sparhawk]

Yeah, but on the other hand

he was an opportunist, so he might still have been intrigued by the death eaters and their power, that they obviously would promise. But wasn't there some part somewhere, where it says something like that Snape turned to the dark arts because he wanted to pay back to Harry's dad? Not exactly like this, but I seem to remember something that pointed into that direction. So you may be right after all. Considering how strong he felt for H. mother. But then, the Malfoy's also have strong feelings for their son, so being capable to love somebody doesn't prevent you from becoming an evil guy.

[Crispy]

 

I think it would be naive to claim that Snape wasn't intrigued by power and the Dark Arts. Clearly he was; but what I said above is still true. I think Snape turned to the Dark Arts out of general bitterness, partly directed at James, but also at the world in general. Life was not kind to Severus Snape.

 

The Malfoys may have done evil things, but ultimately they cared much more about their son than they did about Voldemort. Draco's mother actually pays a key part in V's downfall when she betrays him by announcing (untruthfully) to the Death Eaters that Harry is dead - an action which ultimately rallies the Hogwarts forces, causing V's last horcrux to be destroyed and allowing Harry to face Voldemort on Harry's own terms, rather than in the middle of a forest surrounded by V's allies.

 

Like Dumbledore says, love overcomes evil. (Now there's a high school essay question! "Discuss the theme of love overcoming evil in HP.")

 

I'm glad we can have conversations like this - It speaks to the quality of the writing that none (or very few) of the characters are completely good or completely bad.

 

[OrbWeaver]

I have a lot of empathy for Severus Snape, and can totally understand why he turned out the way he did. In fact, I would say it demonstrates considerable strength of character that

he did not become entirely evil.

[Macsen]

 

Sorry, I have to disagree with you guys. A tough childhood is no excuse for siding with a known mass murderer, who would gladly round up and kill most of the human race. It's like saying 'Yes Hitler's cronies were evil, but they had a tough time as children'.

 

Snape was pretty vile, and the only thing that led him down the path of 'good' was a rather unhealthy obsession with somebody else's wife.

 

[sparhawk]

 

Well, when he started to fall in love with her, she was not another man's live. And according to the books, it looked to me as if he even had a chance to get her, but he spoiled it.

 

 

But I agree that a hard childhood is not really a good excuse for becoming evil. You are what you make out of yourself (mostly). There are enough people who also have a VERY hard childhood and still become good men. I remember reading a book about a guy who was abused and totured by his mother when he was five, up until he was eight or ten. I was really shocked when I read that book. The author (who was the kid) is Pelzer Dave, but I don't know the english title of the book. The german one is "They called me it" (*translated by me), so the original title of his book may differ. There are thousands of kids with a very bad background, but noty all of them become murders, rapers, or whatever.

[Crispy]

Point of information: Voldemort was probably not a "known mass murderer" at the time Snape signed up. I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but there's a conversation somewhere in the series where someone (Sirius? Hagrid? Arthur Weasley?) says that a lot of people thought Voldemort had the right idea at first with regard to his "politics", so to speak (Muggles being inferior, the importance of pure blood, etc. etc.) but later on realised that his methods were abhorrent and decided they wanted out. Obviously that's a horrible opinion in itself, akin to racism, but siding with a "known racist" is slightly less damning than siding with a "known mass murderer".

 

So Snape was attracted by the lure of power and some alignment with what he thought his own politics "should" be (Slytherin house has always been heavily into this pure-blood stuff, and the politics of one's peers tend to rub off on one), was pushed by his life circumstances into joining up with the Death Eaters, and then recoiled when he realised how evil Voldemort really was - but by that time he was already too far in to back out.

The threat on Lily's life was the tipping point that made him finally defect, but I'd wager he'd already had thoughts in that direction before.

 

 

I'm quite in agreement with OrbWeaver,

though if you'd asked me before I read book 7 I would have responded quite differently. Killing Dumbledore was pretty damning evidence, but it's clear now that he only did it on Dumbledore's orders.

 

[OrbWeaver]

Sorry, I have to disagree with you guys. A tough childhood is no excuse for siding with a known mass murderer, who would gladly round up and kill most of the human race. It's like saying 'Yes Hitler's cronies were evil, but they had a tough time as children'.

 

Who's talking about "excuses"? I said that I empathised with Snape and understood his situation; there is no moral judgement involved. It is a fact of life that people are formed by a combination of their nature and their life experiences, and in some cases these two will combine to result in traits which many people consider to be "bad" -- but this doesn't change the fact that they ended up this way, probably inevitably.

 

I do not even recognise the concepts of "good" and "evil" myself; this is essentially religious black-and-white thinking which bears no relevance to real life.

 

(FYI: Hitler's cronies were not "evil", they were behaving in a natural human way).

[Macsen]

Point of information: Voldemort was probably not a "known mass murderer" at the time Snape signed up.

Um! Snape rushed over to tell Voldy about the prophecy (why would he have done this if he no longer supported him?), and was still very much on his side up until the point he killed Lily Evans. He was already known as 'He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named' at that point for his unspeakable crimes. He was so evil that there was a country-wide wizard celebration when he died and they built a statue to Harry Potter. If Snape was at that point still somehow oblivious to his master's nature, it seems as if he was the only one.

 

I do not even recognise the concepts of "good" and "evil" myself; this is essentially religious black-and-white thinking which bears no relevance to real life.

Bloody hell it's a kids book, not real life - we don't have to get into semantics.

 

Hitler's cronies were not "evil", they were behaving in a natural human way).

I don't accept that excuse at all. For instance, I know WWII POWs were treated well here in Wales because I've spoken to some of them. If it was human nature to revert to 'evil' when you are in a position of authority that would not be the case. Nope, there's no excuse for barbaric treatment of another human being, whatever your background.

[sparhawk]

I'd rather say: It's in the range of human behaviour.

And by definition they acted evil, no matter how many excuses are brought. Of course the definition of evil changes, just like all human standards do over time. What is acceptable in one society is abominable in another one. But turtoring, killing people because of racism, suppression and so on, is usually always considered to be bad, even though politicians like to coin it differentely, depending on the point of view.